It was all supposed to be so different. When Stephen Purcell, the former leader of Glasgow City Council, created Glasgow Life on April Fool's Day in 2007*, he boasted that transferring the management of the city's cultural assets to a private company would benefit Glasgow. Since then, Glaswegians have experienced a reduction in opening hours at our museums and libraries, suffered rising prices at our leisure venues, and had to endure the introduction of entrance fees to exhibitions ... even when those exhibitions consisted mainly of works owned by us.

Last week, however, bosses at Glasgow Life went a step further in imperilling the proud reputation of our great city when they formally petitioned the Scottish government to overturn the unambiguous wishes of Sir William Burrell regarding his generously bequeathed collection. Councillor Archie Graham and Glasgow Life boss Bridget McConnell visited Holyrood to ask the Scottish government to sideline Sir William's deed of covenant that stated clearly that the Burrell Collection should not be broken up and sent abroad.

Missing the main point regarding breaking up the internationally-renowned collection, Graham and McConnell argued that Sir William could not possibly have foreseen the advent of air freight transporation. The two Glasgow Life bosses put forward the most tenuous of cases in spite of the fact that Sir William clearly re-stated and reinforced in a 1953 codicil the conditions of his bequest after he discovered that the council had sent two paintings from the collection to Switzerland – against his written will. In response to the council's (then corporation’s) flagrant disregard of Sir William's wishes, the highly-successful shipping magnate and entrepreneur wrote:

QUOTE

''The Memorandum of Agreement with the Corporation only gives permission to lend items from the collection to any public gallery in Great Britain. That stipulation was made to safeguard the items from damage. Had I known in time it would not have been allowed. It mustn't occur again.''

For its part, the council subsequently gave Sir William an unqualified assurance that ''in view of your strongly expressed attitude to lending you may be assured there will be no further loans overseas, and that requests for loans within Scotland and England will be closely scrutinized, but rarely granted.''

Now, however, using the pretext of the need for the Burrell Collection building in Pollok Park to undergo a ‘George Square-style revamp‘ – apparently there’s a leaky roof – Glasgow Life and council bosses claim that the 30-year-old building needs to be shut to the public for up to five years. During this time, Glasgow Life intends to tout the artefacts in the collection worldwide; thereafter, the company will transport priceless and vulnerable works of art to the highest bidders around the globe.

A growing list of international experts is now condemning Glasgow’s intentions, including Dr Nicholas Penny, the director of the National Gallery in London, who last week said that moving works of art had led to several major accidents, incidents and damage to works, many of which have not come to public attention. In response, Glasgow Life claimed that there had been no damage to any of the (non-Burrell) items shipped around the world in the last five years.

What kind of people are we dealing with when they wish to break a contract ie the covenant made by the city and Sir William.Their arrogance is breathtaking.If the building needs refurbishment by all means close it and get the work done but there should be no wriggle room when it comes to the collection.I have to ask what legal power would the Scottish Govt have to make decisions of the type they are asking ?I just remembered I visited the Burrell 97-98 when I was deployed on the M77 construction and I recall there were buckets placed about because of leaks.I bought this piece as a momento.

...."what kind of people are we dealing with...", surely by now you must know...Gangsters, Thieves, Self-Opinionates, especially hand-picked so that they are more photo-genic than the old..."here for the people candidates".Forming Council groups for personal profit as 'at arms length' but run as a Council Quango and without any access by 'Joe Public'Allowed to give themselves large private salaries, and become 'self-important' posers, using every service the Council can provide, and of course if challenged on any matter, both personal and financial, use the full force of the Council's Legal Department to defend their actions....!DOES THAT LET YOU KNOW WHAT PEOPLE YOU ARE DEALING WITH.....?

When I was working in Kent I totally refurbished a building, with most staff still on site. The building was pretty much gutted on the inside and done anew, including all the plumbing, electrics (lots for the PCs, etc.), removing asbestos and so on. It was achieved by moving staff out of one section to another, doing the work then moving them back. The poor staff were moved quite a few times (you can imagine the headache that gave me!) but the point is that surely the collection could be stored safely or the work done in stages. The entire building (200 staff) was completed in under a year. Why do they need 5 years? It would be quicker to build a new one. Other than making money out of this, I don't understand their reasoning.

A Covenant should be upheld, what on earth are these people thinking about.

It is a true saying that 'money talks'. I've just heard about this and I'm disgusted.

The building housing the Burrell collection is supposed to be upgraded - mind you I didn't see anything wrong with it as it was, repairs are one thing entirely and obviously have to be carried on as and when required to safeguard this massive collection.

I often muse at the energy this man had in his willingness to collect, so much so, that a lot of it has still never been seen, and there is a constant recirculation of the stored items with the ones exhibited so that eventually we will see all of it.

Just amazing, and that's what I always tell people who have still not experienced the delights of this great collection.

I most certainly have voted in the 'no' camp, as it looks as if we all have.

--------------------

It is possible to fail in many ways...while to succeed is possible only in one way.- Aristotle

You've answered your own question Betsy.To claim that the projected task will require 5 years gives Glasgow Life the excuse they need to make a bit of pocket-lining money under the guise of protecting the collection better by renting it out while the work is being carried out.... in other words, a scam .

QUOTE

Stained glass

The museum is home to one of the greatest assemblies of medieval stained glass in the world. There are more than 700 stained glass panels from across Europe in the collection, including many examples of Gothic, Renaissance and Romanesque styles.

In 2013 a project was commenced to conserve and research the museum's collection of stained glass from the Carmelite church at Boppard-am-Rhein, Germany. The 34 panels that make up the Burrell collection of Boppard windows have a combined surface area of 14 square metres.

I'd hate to be responsible for transporting that collection to a town on the Rhein.

--------------------

"Destiny is a good thing to accept when it's going your way. When it isn't, don't call it destiny; call it injustice, treachery, or simple bad luck.” ― Joseph Heller, God Knows

What part of Sir William Burrell's instructions do these idiots not understand?If there is such great interest in the collection then the rest of the world should visit Glasgow where there surely must be a building capable of housing the collection while the "leaky roof "is fixed.It must be some size of a roof to take 5 years to repair it.Who has surveyed it and come to that conclusion?It would also be interesting to know why the roof was ever allowed to deteriorate to such condition that a major operation is now required to restore it.Who was asleep on the job???

The Burrell Collection. I'm very ashamed to have to admit I've never seen it. From time to time down through the years I've heard it spoken of or discussed in some parts of the media.Because of that I knew it was a huge collection of European and Asian artworks and artifacts collected by Sir Wiliam Burrell and bequeathed to the City of Glasgow.. I imagine that by giving his treasures to his city of birth, Sir William was holding the councilors of Glasgow to a sacred trust that they, and subsequent councilors, would hold the faith and under no circumstances, ever let the collection or any part of it leave Scotland.Little did he know that less than 70 years later, two dimwits would come up with an idea to close the museum down and rent out the collection. Is that down to stupidity or just plain arrogance? I hope the Scottish government refuse this request by Graham and McConnell and I hope they do it in a very harsh way

Perhaps they are hoping to rise the cost of the refurb by lending the works of art to other museums, thats not to say they would get the total cost that wayWhere would they get the money for a refurb, Scottish Government or Westminster?

Put it all into storage, along with the other works of art from the collectionI have only been once to The Burrell and wasnt impressed, mind you it was a long time ago, perhaps I should go soon

All material in the site Glasgow Guide is copyright of the Glasgow Guide Organisation. This material is for your own private use only, and no part of the site may be reproduced, amended, modified, copied, or transmitted to third parties, by any means whatsoever without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. All rights reserved.